FrancieBrady wrote: » So the hurt of what happened only lasts for that long? Sons and daughters of those victims are not going to feel hurt? It's just an arbitrary cut off point. A conversation needs to be had about how we all remember. President Higgins has some very wise and considered views on this and I think he was instrumental in directing our own centenary of commemorations. resulting in sensitive and inclusive (barring the Black and Tan brainfart) events that allows reflection and respectful remembrance. Even that offended though and no amount of reaching out helped.A dictatorial approach is doomed to abject failure IMO. Won't stop some trying though.
Marine Layer wrote: » Loyalist bombers and shooters will make the province ungovernable and bring their campaign across the border Same playbook as the real IRA had Probably targeting Republican marches and businesses and areas It will be messy? They'll alienate the London mothership but won't care
FrancieBrady wrote: » The people who carried out those attacks are commemorated by their own and those of a similar viewpoint. We could ask about our current government legitimising US attacks by allowing them access to our airports. Using selective victims is 'exploitation' of those victims to further your political argument. The conflict/war is over here. Posters here are not looking at what it means to stop one side remembering their dead. If you only stop those you don't agree with and allow yourself the luxury of remembering your own, then you are being dictatorial and no better than oppressors anywhere TBH.
wicklowstevo wrote: » again with this ? coming from a staunch supporter of a very much non democratic party . would you agree that the army council is a non democratic grouping ?
FrancieBrady wrote: » So the hurt of what happened only lasts for that long? Sons and daughters of those victims are not going to feel hurt? It's just an arbitrary cut off point. A conversation needs to be had about how we all remember. President Higgins has some very wise and considered views on this and I think he was instrumental in directing our own centenary of commemorations. resulting in sensitive and inclusive (barring the Black and Tan brainfart) events that allows reflection and respectful remembrance. Even that offended though and no amount of reaching out helped. A dictatorial approach is doomed to abject failure IMO. Won't stop some trying though.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Stevo, I agreed, when I voted for the GFA, that those involved in the conflict should involve themselves in democratic politics. Before voting SF in the last election I satisfied myself that that is what the IRA had done. I don't depend on anti-SF sources for that info but on the Commissions set up as an outworking of the GFA. I also depend on my own engagements with the party as I do with other party's when assessing if I can vote for them. As long as the IRA offer no military threat I have no issue who is involved in democratic politics. The same goes for all sides...I may disagree with their views and version of history but I cannot in conscience 'exclude' them. That would be talking out of both sides of my mouth when I voted for the GFA. There is enough of that going on tbh.
wicklowstevo wrote: » ladies and gentlemen we have reached apex shinner speak congrats francie
FrancieBrady wrote: » Not sure it is fair to the debate to make a statement like that without explanation. That is part of what I agreed to in the GFA. In my opinion anyone who voted for the GFA agreed to the same thing. Not everyone is living up to it though.
Furze99 wrote: » Voting for the GFA doesn't absolve violent nationalism from decades of death and destruction just like that. You judge people by what they do, not what they simply say. It will take quite a few years yet till these matters are viewed historically. And the problem for SF is that bitter distrust still exists, partic up north. All SF efforts should be towards building consensus with unionists, seeking common ground, putting aside that which can't be achieved easily now but which might be in the future e.g. issues around language. That's how progress will be made.
Brendan Bendar wrote: » Steve, hate to bust your bubble, but ‘we’ are only in the low foothills. Soz ,a chara.
Shebean wrote: » Wasn't it also regarding equality of same sex couples and cash for ash? In the US things must be in English and Spanish. In Canada French and English. Fighting over people wanting Irish included on the Island of Ireland seems petulant on behalf of the DUP. Likely cover for not wanting to give an inch. Should we, (people) be looking to make political allowances for creationists and homophobic climate deniers?
blanch152 wrote: » There are more native speakers of Polish in Northern Ireland than there are of either of the two reincarnated languages/dialects. The Irish spoken in Northern Ireland is an import from Donegal as the last vestiges of native Northern speakers died out in the 1970s and 1980s.
Deleted User wrote: » https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/sinn-fein-mlas-martina-anderson-and-karen-mullan-stepping-down-40387501.html Confirmation that Martina Anderson and Karen Mullan are stepping down from the stuttering Derry SF machine. Big call from Mary Lou and the ‘national leadership’ of the party. Martina was planting bombs and serving a life sentence while Mary Lou was on a student exchange programme in France. How do the rank and file feel about it I wonder?
Fann Linn wrote: » Herein lies the problem. Everyone from Neil Richmond down are saying that concessions should be made to Unionists/Loyalists if we are to go down the UI route. Be that change of flag, anthem etc. so as to accommodate and make welcome the Unionist minority. However, when a similar minority in NI seek accommodation from loyalists for their language and traditions it's pointed out by their apologists on here that it's a 'dead language.' Ironically dismissing the point altogether that the same Unionists by their inaction and point blank obstruction of same ensured that the Irish language died out in the 70s and 80s. Acceptance and change is a two way street.
blanch152 wrote: » Big news that, wonder if any of them will fight it and cause trouble in the backroom. The Belfast Brigade assert their authority over the boys in Derry.
Deleted User wrote: » The hoops one has to jump through as a SF supporter really is something else.
Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: » Both have accepted the decision of "the leadership". Strange way to run things I have to say.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » You do realise that there are many, many SF supporters who vote for them entirely for current social or economic ideological reasons, without any regard for the past? Those voters have absolutely no hoops to jump through. SF currently (or if you insist, to mollify the inevitable allegation that it's a facade, currently presenting themselves as) a hard-left wing party who desire to reverse three decades of neoliberal policies. It is widely held (again, not stating that it is a fact, only that it is widely held) that neoliberal policies are directly responsible - at the very least, in a large part - for the growing disconnect throughout the 2010s between take-home pay and the cost of living. Therefore, those who find themselves on the wrong side of the income to cost of living ratio - a demographic cohort which is expanding rapidly, year after year - prefer to vote for SF and PBP than for either of the other two big parties, or their smaller former coalition partners who assisted them in neoliberal policymaking over the last several decades. There are literally no mental hoops one has to jump through in order to vote in this manner. The only thing you can accuse those voters of, if you like, is selfishness - they're putting their own prospects and policy interests ahead of those involved in or victimised by The Troubles. If you believe the latter, then in my honest opinion, it's the other parties who have caused these people to believe they have no other choice, that you should be blaming for the surge in SF support. This is human psychology 101, in all fairness. You can be as empathetic and world-minded as you like, but the longer you have to live with a declining quality of life, the less and less you're going to care about literally any other issue when you decide which party to vote for at election time. It's a basic fact of life. You may disagree with it or criticise those people for doing so, but it is what it is. I'm from south Dublin and I literally don't know anyone who voted for Sinn Fein because "I think it's great that the party has links with paramilitary and/or criminal organisations". Not one. Among those I know who voted for them (which is honestly almost everyone in my own social circles, even those who grew up with parents as bitterly opposed to SF as the likes of Blanch on this thread), literally every single one of those people voted for them because either they themselves, or someone they loved, was suffering because the cost of living had spiralled out of control between 2014 or so and 2019, with a particularly painful acceleration in the summer and autumn of 2019. The Financial Times stated that housing costs and take home pay had increased by 40% and 14% respectively in the latter half of the 2010s. This is why Sinn Fein has surged. I can obviously only speak for my own generation and people I've spoken to here, but this is literally the reason. Not even one of the reasons. It's the reason. There are absolutely no mental gymnastics required to vote for a party whose policies oppose those which you believe to have caused your economic suffering. And it is by no means even slightly unusual for people in those circumstances to disregard literally every other electoral consideration when they choose which box to tick on election day. To give one very simple policy example, there are no mental gymnastics required to note that the other big parties supported selling the majority of O'Devaney Gardens to the private market and thus reducing the state's supply of public, non-profit housing - and that SF opposed this sell-off. There are no mental gymnastics required, furthermore, to note that if there was more social housing available, fewer people would be at the mercy of the market. Therefore, there are no mental gymnastics required to note that SF is the better choice, if that issue has become so severe that it has crowded out all others from your consideration. SF's voters don't have to jump through mental hoops to justify voting for the party in spite of its past - they simply don't care. They can't afford to care.
blanch152 wrote: » One of the problems of today is limited social circles, where people surround themselves with others who think and act the same as them, sometimes deliberately, sometimes inadvertently. Social media adds to this problem, with people finding confirmation bias whereever they look.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » I'm from south Dublin and I literally don't know anyone who voted for Sinn Fein because "I think it's great that the party has links with paramilitary and/or criminal organisations". Not one.
Fann Linn wrote: » Exit polls after the last election showed health and housing as main reason for people's voting patterns. Social media is just a tool that informs the people of these issues. Twitter since yesterday has most journalists and economists highlighting the latest fiasco housing policy, 'Ireland's Waterloo' some journalist described it as. All these journalists and economists aren't Shinners I suppose, or are likely to have ever voted for them. Poor policy from FFG has led to the position SF are in today.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/0c95fbacfd3f8db330cceee65321bca3.svg)
